In April of 2002, a man named Shakir Beckley was fatally shot in Chicago. In May, this
defendant, Tavares Hunt, became a suspect in that case while he was already in the Cook County jail
in connection with an unrelated matter.

The sole issue for the Illinois Supreme Court to decide in this appeal by the State is whether the
defendant’s statements to an inmate-informer should be suppressed pursuant to the court’s decision
in People v. McCauley, 163 Ill. 2d 414 (1994). In McCauley, it was held that the Illinois Constitution
was violated when a suspect was questioned at a police station while an attorney who, unbeknownst
to him, had been retained by his family and was trying unsuccessfully to gain access to him. This
Illinois ruling provides greater right-to-counsel and due-process protections to a suspect than have
been held to be applicable under the United States Constitution.

In this case, a fellow inmate approached police and said he thought he could get the defendant
to make incriminating statements concerning the Beckley homicide. Police set up the inmate-informer to wear a wire and to talk to the defendant. A judicially authorized overhear was arranged
for, with the inmate as the consenting party. On July 31, 2002, the defendant, who was still
incarcerated at the county jail on the unrelated matter, was told that he would be taken to the police
station for a lineup. He called the attorney who had been appointed to represent him in that other
matter and left a message asking counsel to come to the police station for the lineup. According to
counsel, that attorney spent about 45 minutes waiting for access to the defendant during the same
time period during which the inmate-informer was conversing with the defendant in an otherwise
empty room and listening to his allegedly incriminating statements. By the time counsel reached the
defendant, these conversations were over. Hunt was subsequently indicted by the grand jury for the
Beckley homicide, and he sought to suppress his statements, initially with success. The appellate
court affirmed and the State appealed.

In this decision, the supreme court held that the defendant was not subjected to police “custodial
interrogation” when he conversed with the inmate-informer and that, thus, neither McCauley (nor
Miranda) were applicable. The police were not required to give Miranda warnings, and defendant
had no right to counsel. Neither were police required to tell the defendant that the attorney in the
other matter was seeking access to him. Therefore, there should be no suppression on McCauley
grounds. The appellate court was reversed, and a decision which it had issued earlier on this question
in People v. Perkins, 248 Ill. App. 3d 762 (1993), was expressly overruled. The cause was remanded
to the circuit court for further proceedings.